Nasal versus oral aerosol delivery to the “lungs” in infants and toddlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Objectives The oral route has been considered superior to the nasal route for aerosol delivery to the lower respiratory tract (LRT) in adults and children. However, there are no data comparing aerosol delivery via the oral and nasal routes in infants. The aim of this study was to compare nasal and oral delivery of aerosol in anatomically correct replicas of infants' faces containing both nasal and oral upper airways. Methods Three CT‐derived upper respiratory tract (“URT”) replicas representing infants/toddlers aged 5, 14 and 20 months were studied and aerosol delivery to the “lower respiratory tract” (LRT) by either the oral or nasal route for each of the replicas was measured at the “tracheal” opening. A radio‐labeled (99mDTPA) normal saline solution aerosol was generated by a soft‐mist inhaler (SMIRespimat® Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany) and aerosol was delivered via a valved holding chamber (Respichamber® TMI, London, Canada) and an air‐tight mask (Unomedical, Inc., McAllen, TX). A breath simulator was connected to the replicas and an absolute filter at the “tracheal” opening captured the aerosol representing “LRT” dose. Age‐appropriate mask dimensions and breathing patterns were employed for each of the airway replicas. Two different tidal volumes (Vt) were used for comparing the nasal versus oral routes. Results Nasal delivery to the LRT exceeded that of oral delivery in the 5‐ and 14‐month models and was equivalent in the 20‐month model. Differences between nasal and oral delivery diminished with “age”/size. Similar findings were observed with lower and higher tidal volumes (Vt). Conclusion Nasal breathing for aerosol delivery to the “LRT” is similar to, or more efficient than, mouth breathing in infant/toddler models, contrary to what is observed in older children and adults. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2015; 50:276–283. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".